From a movie website, here is a conversation between a gentleman from Australia and myself:
"<Being Australian, I have a stupid question to ask...
Why are Americans so fascinated by firearms...?
You may know, that in Australia, the general public
can't buy guns or rifles. A lot of us down under
really can't understand, why the need to have personal
firearms.>
It is not a stupid question at all, my friend.
It is not quite as uniquely American as your question implies that it is. Canada, I believe has a high number of firearms per capita, primarily due to the fact that a lot of Canada is still wilderness, and hunting is still very popular. In the rural areas, in particular, there are still a lot of firearms. And then there is Switzerland, where the militia tradition is still pretty strong, and a very high proportion of homes have not only sporting firearms, but military weapons.
There are other countries in Central Europe that have strong firearm traditions as well, where licenses to not only own, but to carry concealed, are easily obtained.
So, hopefully this goes to show that gun ownership is not a wholly American trait.
But the above does not answer the question as to why we are fascinated with them. In my case, the partial answer is that they are a lot of fun to own and to shoot. I have spent many an enjoyable session, both with my friends and by myself, target shooting, and in spite of my physical problems, (I have, as I have probably mentioned before, a mild case of cerebral palsy) I am really pretty good at shooting my handguns. And they are a challenge to master. I also have rifles and a few shotguns, although, I may have to restrict my rifle shooting to the smaller calibers due to the beginning of arthritis in my shoulder. Shooting is thus one of the few athletic activites that I can enjoy.
Firearms also have a utilitarian function as well. I have used one of my revolvers to dispatch an animal that was obviously in pain and beyond hope; in this case, it was a clearly-rabid skunk. I would have done it another time as well, but did not have my revolver with me. I know of rural veterinarians who use pistols to dispatch livestock, and in one case, this was done on my farm.
Then too, firearms are also useful for protection, and are used many times for this purpose. Indeed, the very features that make the so-called 'assault weapons' good for offense, also make them good for defense. They are light, handy, easy to shoot, have a high magazine capacity, and are fairly accurate as well.
Then too, many Americans, including myself, feel that our right to own firearms is one safeguard against a tyrannical government, because it provides us with the ability to resist, should our governmant become oppressive. Now, obviously, this argument has its' limitations, but I still feel that it has at least some validity.
The vast majority of guns in private hands are not misused, and such events as Newtown, (and for that matter, Hobart) as horrible as they are, are anomalies. Legislation affecting as basic a right as that of of self-defense, should not be based on anomalous events, such as these.
I recognize that you will probably not agree with many of the things that I said here, but I think that these are some of the reasons why we are reluctant to give up our guns. And I hope that even if my answer does not satisfy you completely, that it has at least given you something to think about.
<I must apologize for my extremely late reply...
I did mean to thank you and Gary for your wonderful posts.
I do hope that I have caused no offence? I certainly didn't intend to imply that all gun owners in the USA are intent on shooting everyone around them. I was just asking out of curiosity as most Australians have nothing to do with fire arms. Of course the police and security guards do have hand guns.
I'm certainly not implying that we don't have a gun problem in Australia... fortunately or unfortunately, gun problems in this country tend to stem from the more criminal elements of society. A few years back, when I was living in Melbourne, there were a spate of shootings amongst the cities criminal class. It appears that history is repeating in Sydney, there are crime gang members being shot every few days!
Well thank you again for your very informative (as usual) posts!>
Attila, I have to say that you are a very gracious man. Thank you for your very kind words. It is not often that I get to explain the whys and wherefores of firearms ownership and use to someone who has limited exposure to them. I really enjoyed doing so, as it forced me to think before I write. Too often, I think, Americans get unnecessarily hostile in explaining their affection for firearms to those who don't share our affinity for them, especially to those who live in countires with very strict gun laws, such as Australia and in particular, the UK, which has even more stringent gun laws than you have Down Under.
At least in Australia, gun ownership is possible (even handguns) although a very strict licensing system is in place, while in the UK, handguns are almost completely banned. As I understand it, rural veterinarians are able to own handguns for the humane dispatching of livestock, but that is just about it. During the Olympics, for example, the pistol-shooting events had to take place in France, due to the legal situation in the UK.
Like I said before, such events as Aurora, Port Arthur, Dunblane, Hungerford, and Newtown, while they are truly shocking, horrible events, are (thank God!) anomalies. And broad, sweeping legislation should not be based on such events, and especially not if it affects as basic a right as that of self-defense.
There is also the argument that doing away with military-looking rifles is the first step towards the total elimination of firearms. Gun-control advocates scoff at this, saying that the 'slippery-slope' argument is a logical fallacy. And, to be honest, it usually is. This argument, also known as the camel's nose argument', goes like this: if 'a' is allowed to happen, then 'b' will follow, then 'c', and before you know it, we are at 'z' which is a place that we for sure and for certain don't want to be. The reason that it is not a fallacy in this case, is because the gun-control proponents themselves say it is a first step.
And then too, we have the example of the UK. Perhaps it is not too well-known, but prior to about 1920 or so, firearms were fairly easily obtained in the UK. Then Parliament started getting more and more strict until now, even what we Americans call 'long guns', (that is rifles and shotguns) are heavily regulated. The British NRA caved in at first, wanting to appear 'reasonable' and every time new restrictions were proposed, they went along with it, for the same reason. Before long, they found that their 'reasonable' attitude had resulted in the nickle and diming away of not only the right of gun-ownership, but that of self-defense as well. You might, as illustration, google the case of one Thomas Martin. And that is one of the things that gun-advocacy groups such as the American NRA are afraid of.
And no, my friend, your post did not offend me in the least. It was a very legitimate question, and Americans should learn how to graciously respond to these types of queries."
"<Being Australian, I have a stupid question to ask...
Why are Americans so fascinated by firearms...?
You may know, that in Australia, the general public
can't buy guns or rifles. A lot of us down under
really can't understand, why the need to have personal
firearms.>
It is not a stupid question at all, my friend.
It is not quite as uniquely American as your question implies that it is. Canada, I believe has a high number of firearms per capita, primarily due to the fact that a lot of Canada is still wilderness, and hunting is still very popular. In the rural areas, in particular, there are still a lot of firearms. And then there is Switzerland, where the militia tradition is still pretty strong, and a very high proportion of homes have not only sporting firearms, but military weapons.
There are other countries in Central Europe that have strong firearm traditions as well, where licenses to not only own, but to carry concealed, are easily obtained.
So, hopefully this goes to show that gun ownership is not a wholly American trait.
But the above does not answer the question as to why we are fascinated with them. In my case, the partial answer is that they are a lot of fun to own and to shoot. I have spent many an enjoyable session, both with my friends and by myself, target shooting, and in spite of my physical problems, (I have, as I have probably mentioned before, a mild case of cerebral palsy) I am really pretty good at shooting my handguns. And they are a challenge to master. I also have rifles and a few shotguns, although, I may have to restrict my rifle shooting to the smaller calibers due to the beginning of arthritis in my shoulder. Shooting is thus one of the few athletic activites that I can enjoy.
Firearms also have a utilitarian function as well. I have used one of my revolvers to dispatch an animal that was obviously in pain and beyond hope; in this case, it was a clearly-rabid skunk. I would have done it another time as well, but did not have my revolver with me. I know of rural veterinarians who use pistols to dispatch livestock, and in one case, this was done on my farm.
Then too, firearms are also useful for protection, and are used many times for this purpose. Indeed, the very features that make the so-called 'assault weapons' good for offense, also make them good for defense. They are light, handy, easy to shoot, have a high magazine capacity, and are fairly accurate as well.
Then too, many Americans, including myself, feel that our right to own firearms is one safeguard against a tyrannical government, because it provides us with the ability to resist, should our governmant become oppressive. Now, obviously, this argument has its' limitations, but I still feel that it has at least some validity.
The vast majority of guns in private hands are not misused, and such events as Newtown, (and for that matter, Hobart) as horrible as they are, are anomalies. Legislation affecting as basic a right as that of of self-defense, should not be based on anomalous events, such as these.
I recognize that you will probably not agree with many of the things that I said here, but I think that these are some of the reasons why we are reluctant to give up our guns. And I hope that even if my answer does not satisfy you completely, that it has at least given you something to think about.
<I must apologize for my extremely late reply...
I did mean to thank you and Gary for your wonderful posts.
I do hope that I have caused no offence? I certainly didn't intend to imply that all gun owners in the USA are intent on shooting everyone around them. I was just asking out of curiosity as most Australians have nothing to do with fire arms. Of course the police and security guards do have hand guns.
I'm certainly not implying that we don't have a gun problem in Australia... fortunately or unfortunately, gun problems in this country tend to stem from the more criminal elements of society. A few years back, when I was living in Melbourne, there were a spate of shootings amongst the cities criminal class. It appears that history is repeating in Sydney, there are crime gang members being shot every few days!
Well thank you again for your very informative (as usual) posts!>
Attila, I have to say that you are a very gracious man. Thank you for your very kind words. It is not often that I get to explain the whys and wherefores of firearms ownership and use to someone who has limited exposure to them. I really enjoyed doing so, as it forced me to think before I write. Too often, I think, Americans get unnecessarily hostile in explaining their affection for firearms to those who don't share our affinity for them, especially to those who live in countires with very strict gun laws, such as Australia and in particular, the UK, which has even more stringent gun laws than you have Down Under.
At least in Australia, gun ownership is possible (even handguns) although a very strict licensing system is in place, while in the UK, handguns are almost completely banned. As I understand it, rural veterinarians are able to own handguns for the humane dispatching of livestock, but that is just about it. During the Olympics, for example, the pistol-shooting events had to take place in France, due to the legal situation in the UK.
Like I said before, such events as Aurora, Port Arthur, Dunblane, Hungerford, and Newtown, while they are truly shocking, horrible events, are (thank God!) anomalies. And broad, sweeping legislation should not be based on such events, and especially not if it affects as basic a right as that of self-defense.
There is also the argument that doing away with military-looking rifles is the first step towards the total elimination of firearms. Gun-control advocates scoff at this, saying that the 'slippery-slope' argument is a logical fallacy. And, to be honest, it usually is. This argument, also known as the camel's nose argument', goes like this: if 'a' is allowed to happen, then 'b' will follow, then 'c', and before you know it, we are at 'z' which is a place that we for sure and for certain don't want to be. The reason that it is not a fallacy in this case, is because the gun-control proponents themselves say it is a first step.
And then too, we have the example of the UK. Perhaps it is not too well-known, but prior to about 1920 or so, firearms were fairly easily obtained in the UK. Then Parliament started getting more and more strict until now, even what we Americans call 'long guns', (that is rifles and shotguns) are heavily regulated. The British NRA caved in at first, wanting to appear 'reasonable' and every time new restrictions were proposed, they went along with it, for the same reason. Before long, they found that their 'reasonable' attitude had resulted in the nickle and diming away of not only the right of gun-ownership, but that of self-defense as well. You might, as illustration, google the case of one Thomas Martin. And that is one of the things that gun-advocacy groups such as the American NRA are afraid of.
And no, my friend, your post did not offend me in the least. It was a very legitimate question, and Americans should learn how to graciously respond to these types of queries."
